The Long Island Power Authority
announced this week that its Chief Operating Officer, Mike Hervey, has resigned from LIPA effective at the end of 2012.
LIPA is a political subdivision of the State of New York. LIPA was formed in 1985 as a non-profit
municipal electric utility to take over the assets of
former investor-owned utility Long Island Lighting Company. Today, LIPA owns
the electric grid in most of Long Island. LIPA does not own electric
generation assets on the island but serves 1.1 million customers with
electricity generated off-island. Its electric distribution network was hard hit by Hurricane Sandy, with over 1.1 million customers losing power. As of earlier this week, 10,000 customers just east of New York City were still without power, while 35,000 more farther onto Long Island suffered significant flood damage and will need repairs before electric service can be restored. County executives and other leaders are calling for federal involvement, and have criticized LIPA for its management of the restoration process.
In a statement released November 13, LIPA Chairman Howard E. Steinberg stated that he had accepted Hervey's resignation, with regret, on behalf of the Board of Trustees. The announcement noted that Hervey had worked for LIPA for 12 years, including serving as CEP for two years.
Also on Tuesday, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo formed a commission to investigate utility companies' storm preparedness and management. Governor Cuomo used his powers under the Moreland Act to form the commission, whose mandate also includes an examination of the regulatory and legal structures for oversight of utility operations. Citing storms including Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and Hurricane Sandy in the
past two years, Governor Cuomo also addressed the adaptation process of adjusting "to the
reality of more frequent major weather incidents".
One utility executive has already resigned, and the commission's investigation will soon be under way. What other changes lie ahead for utility companies in New York and elsewhere as a result of utility responses to hostile weather?
Energy powers society; society's choices shape energy policy. A blog about our energy resources and the choices they present for society.
From brownfields to renewable energy sites
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites are increasingly being used as sites for renewable energy projects. For example, many landfills may be suitable for siting solar photovoltaic panels. Former industrial sites with subsoil contamination may not be suitable for redevelopment with buildings, but may be able to host solar or wind-based electric generation. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, renewable energy systems have been installed at 60 such sites in 25 states. What is the future of this trend?
EPA policy encourages renewable energy development on current and formerly contaminated land and mine sites when it is aligned with the community’s vision for the site. Under EPA's RE-Powering America's Land initiative, EPA identifies the renewable energy potential of these sites and provides resources for communities, developers, industry, state and local governments.
An EPA report released earlier this month describes 60 renewable systems installed on potentially contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites. Of these, the majority (49) generate electricity through solar photovoltaic technology. Seven generate electricity from the wind; biomass, geothermal, hydropower, and combined solar/wind round out the count. Together, these resources provide 184.7 MW of electric generation capacity. Most sell their power into the wholesale market, while some use the power on-site.
Host sites are split among private, federal, municipal, and state ownership. Sites include those regulated under EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act program (CERCLA, or Superfund), EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program (RCRA), brownfields, and landfills.
Many more potential sites exist. Thousands of properties across the country face redevelopment challenges from contamination. The country is home to over 3,000 active commercial landfills and 10,000 municipal landfills. While not all may be suitable for renewable energy development, the concept offers the opportunity to create a revenue stream from property otherwise limited in use and saddled with environmental liabilities. This revenue could be used for remediation of the sites' contamination, as well as for other purposes. The trend of developing renewable energy facilities on contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
EPA policy encourages renewable energy development on current and formerly contaminated land and mine sites when it is aligned with the community’s vision for the site. Under EPA's RE-Powering America's Land initiative, EPA identifies the renewable energy potential of these sites and provides resources for communities, developers, industry, state and local governments.
An EPA report released earlier this month describes 60 renewable systems installed on potentially contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites. Of these, the majority (49) generate electricity through solar photovoltaic technology. Seven generate electricity from the wind; biomass, geothermal, hydropower, and combined solar/wind round out the count. Together, these resources provide 184.7 MW of electric generation capacity. Most sell their power into the wholesale market, while some use the power on-site.
Host sites are split among private, federal, municipal, and state ownership. Sites include those regulated under EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act program (CERCLA, or Superfund), EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program (RCRA), brownfields, and landfills.
Many more potential sites exist. Thousands of properties across the country face redevelopment challenges from contamination. The country is home to over 3,000 active commercial landfills and 10,000 municipal landfills. While not all may be suitable for renewable energy development, the concept offers the opportunity to create a revenue stream from property otherwise limited in use and saddled with environmental liabilities. This revenue could be used for remediation of the sites' contamination, as well as for other purposes. The trend of developing renewable energy facilities on contaminated lands, landfills, and mine sites is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Flow chart of 2011 US energy use
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
A flow chart released by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory illustrates the sources and uses of energy in the United States. It depicts information about all the energy sources used to power society, as well as the breakdown of how that energy is used - or wasted - in electricity generation, transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial contexts.
On the energy source side, petroleum - oil, gasoline, and similar products - provides the largest share of the energy we consume, slightly more than a third of total energy. Natural gas comes in second, providing about a quarter of total energy, with coal coming in at another 20%. Altogether, these fossil fuels provided about 82% of the energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011. Nuclear power provided about 8% of the energy used. The remainder came from renewable resources including biomass, hydropower, wind, geothermal, and solar.
About 40% of the energy from these sources was used to generate electricity. The remainder was used directly for other purposes such as transportation, heating, and industrial processes.
On the use side, transportation consumed the largest share of energy, about 28%. The industrial sector consumed another 24% of the energy. Households consumed about 11%, and commercial businesses consumed about 9%.
This analysis of energy use leaves about 27% of the energy unaccounted for. This energy was consumed in the generation of electricity, but was "rejected", meaning that it could not be captured for a useful purpose. Waste heat being emitted from a generator is a classic example of this rejected energy. End users from industry to residences also waste or reject energy; in fact, according to the chart, 57% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011 was rejected, while only 43% was put to a useful purpose.
About 40% of the energy from these sources was used to generate electricity. The remainder was used directly for other purposes such as transportation, heating, and industrial processes.
On the use side, transportation consumed the largest share of energy, about 28%. The industrial sector consumed another 24% of the energy. Households consumed about 11%, and commercial businesses consumed about 9%.
This analysis of energy use leaves about 27% of the energy unaccounted for. This energy was consumed in the generation of electricity, but was "rejected", meaning that it could not be captured for a useful purpose. Waste heat being emitted from a generator is a classic example of this rejected energy. End users from industry to residences also waste or reject energy; in fact, according to the chart, 57% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. in 2011 was rejected, while only 43% was put to a useful purpose.
Vermont transmission line vandalism
Friday, November 9, 2012
Vermont's electric transmission authority has reported vandalism to a section of high-voltage line connecting Hydro-Quebec's grid to southern New England markets. According to the Caledonian Record, 167 insulating discs were shot out from a transmission line in the town of Concord, Vermont.
Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) manages Vermont's electric transmission system, which includes, 738 miles of transmission lines, 13,000 acres of rights-of-way, 55 substations, switching stations and terminal facilities, interconnection facilities with Hydro-Quebec, as well as fiber optic communication networks that both control the electric system and provide the backbone for high-speed data internet access. VELCO was formed by the state's utilities in 1956 as the nation's first statewide, "transmission only" public utility.
Vandals reportedly used a shotgun to shoot the glass insulating discs which are spaced along the transmission lines and are designed to keep the lines safe from shorting out. In all, 167 out of over 400 insulating discs were destroyed. As a result, VELCO depowered the line until the discs could be replaced, which took from last Friday until last Sunday. The repair itself cost about $250,000, but the biggest cost arose when regional grid operator ISO New England was forced to turn to the spot market to replace the electricity normally imported over the line from Quebec while the line was down. The cost of that replacement power was reportedly over $1 million per day.
The incident is now the subject of a federal investigation. Laws enacted after the widespread eastern blackout in 2003 and the September 11 terrorist attacks have increased the penalties for disrupting electric transmission and other infrastructure. The insulating disc shooting may be treated as a "terrorist act" under federal law.
Transmission lines provide value to society, but are typically expensive and are often located in remote areas. Hunting often occurs along or near transmission lines; just this year, VELCO won the National Wild Turkey Federation's Energy for Wildlife award for the company’s ongoing commitment to develop and improve wildlife habitat along its rights-of-way. The extent of the damage to the insulating discs makes the shooting appear to be intentional, and thus more than a "hunting accident". How will the incident affect transmission line owners' policies about public access to areas near lines? How can transmission lines be better protected against vandalism?
Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) manages Vermont's electric transmission system, which includes, 738 miles of transmission lines, 13,000 acres of rights-of-way, 55 substations, switching stations and terminal facilities, interconnection facilities with Hydro-Quebec, as well as fiber optic communication networks that both control the electric system and provide the backbone for high-speed data internet access. VELCO was formed by the state's utilities in 1956 as the nation's first statewide, "transmission only" public utility.
Vandals reportedly used a shotgun to shoot the glass insulating discs which are spaced along the transmission lines and are designed to keep the lines safe from shorting out. In all, 167 out of over 400 insulating discs were destroyed. As a result, VELCO depowered the line until the discs could be replaced, which took from last Friday until last Sunday. The repair itself cost about $250,000, but the biggest cost arose when regional grid operator ISO New England was forced to turn to the spot market to replace the electricity normally imported over the line from Quebec while the line was down. The cost of that replacement power was reportedly over $1 million per day.
The incident is now the subject of a federal investigation. Laws enacted after the widespread eastern blackout in 2003 and the September 11 terrorist attacks have increased the penalties for disrupting electric transmission and other infrastructure. The insulating disc shooting may be treated as a "terrorist act" under federal law.
Transmission lines provide value to society, but are typically expensive and are often located in remote areas. Hunting often occurs along or near transmission lines; just this year, VELCO won the National Wild Turkey Federation's Energy for Wildlife award for the company’s ongoing commitment to develop and improve wildlife habitat along its rights-of-way. The extent of the damage to the insulating discs makes the shooting appear to be intentional, and thus more than a "hunting accident". How will the incident affect transmission line owners' policies about public access to areas near lines? How can transmission lines be better protected against vandalism?
Connecticut coal-fired power plant air permit issued
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved a five-year permit for the last coal-fired power plant operating in Connecticut. The plant, PSEG Power LLC's Bridgeport Harbor Generating Station, can generate 529 megawatts of energy by combusting coal and oil.
While the plant has operated since 1961, its permit renewal was questioned for economic and environmental reasons. Across the nation, operators of coal plants have announced plans to close or convert plants to other fuels such as natural gas and biomass. Between the low cost of natural gas - projected to stay low for the foreseeable future - and tighter environmental regulations affecting the electric utility sector, many older and smaller coal-fired power plants are no longer economic to operate. Additionally, environmental activists have targeted coal-burning plants as polluters, and had argued against the Bridgeport Harbor plant's new permit.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, existing major stationary sources (i.e. those capable of emitting 100 tons per year or more of any criteria air pollutant) must obtain a so-called Title V permit every five years. Generally, Title V permits are issued by the state or local air pollution control agency, but EPA has 45 days to review any proposed permit and request changes. In September, Connecticut recommended that EPA renew Bridgeport Harbor's permit. After the 45-day review process, EPA approved the permit's issuance.
What does the Bridgeport Harbor air permit mean? Most directly, it means PSEG may continue to operate its plant for another five years -- if it wants to. According to the Connecticut Post, by mid-summer the plant had only operated 24 days this year. The Bridgeport Harbor plant can provide both baseload power and peaking power needed to satisfy peak consumer demand, but generally the fewer days an asset operates, the harder it is to recover the cost of ownership and operations.
Moreover, coal-fired power plants are declining in the U.S. This is particularly true in New England, a region far from coal mining. Will PSEG hold onto the Bridgeport Harbor station and seek another Title V permit in 2017? For how long will the plant continue to burn coal? Will PSEG or another owner seek to repurpose the plant to burn other fuels?
While the plant has operated since 1961, its permit renewal was questioned for economic and environmental reasons. Across the nation, operators of coal plants have announced plans to close or convert plants to other fuels such as natural gas and biomass. Between the low cost of natural gas - projected to stay low for the foreseeable future - and tighter environmental regulations affecting the electric utility sector, many older and smaller coal-fired power plants are no longer economic to operate. Additionally, environmental activists have targeted coal-burning plants as polluters, and had argued against the Bridgeport Harbor plant's new permit.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, existing major stationary sources (i.e. those capable of emitting 100 tons per year or more of any criteria air pollutant) must obtain a so-called Title V permit every five years. Generally, Title V permits are issued by the state or local air pollution control agency, but EPA has 45 days to review any proposed permit and request changes. In September, Connecticut recommended that EPA renew Bridgeport Harbor's permit. After the 45-day review process, EPA approved the permit's issuance.
What does the Bridgeport Harbor air permit mean? Most directly, it means PSEG may continue to operate its plant for another five years -- if it wants to. According to the Connecticut Post, by mid-summer the plant had only operated 24 days this year. The Bridgeport Harbor plant can provide both baseload power and peaking power needed to satisfy peak consumer demand, but generally the fewer days an asset operates, the harder it is to recover the cost of ownership and operations.
Moreover, coal-fired power plants are declining in the U.S. This is particularly true in New England, a region far from coal mining. Will PSEG hold onto the Bridgeport Harbor station and seek another Title V permit in 2017? For how long will the plant continue to burn coal? Will PSEG or another owner seek to repurpose the plant to burn other fuels?
Election 2012 and energy recap
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
With yesterday's general election behind us, people across the United States are considering its impact on energy policy. From President Obama's retention of the White House to state elections and ballot measures, voters have reshaped the energy landscape. Here are some highlights:
- President Obama wins reelection. Obama's win may mean "more of the same" when it comes to energy policy. President Obama has indicated support for increased domestic production of natural gas and oil, as well as for programs to encourage the development of renewable electric generation. While the U.S. Department of Energy remains under scrutiny for loan guarantees it offered companies like Solyndra, Obama's reelection likely means that the Department of Energy will not face as strong a shakeup as it would have under a President Romney. Still, many observers expect Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to be replaced. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will likely continue to develop regulations covering energy-related emissions such as ozone, coal ash, and sulfur from fuels. These regulations have effectively been on hold pending the election. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson may continue to lead the agency. Likewise, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has indicated his desire to remain Secretary of the Interior; in Obama's second term, the Department of the Interior is likely to continue its current course in leasing land for oil and gas production as well as for renewable energy production.
- Congress remains divided. At the federal level, Democrats held onto control of the Senate, while Republicans retained control in the House. The chambers' partisan nature may lead to gridlock, or at least to consensus-based, relatively moderate measures as the only kind of legislation likely to meet the approval of both chambers of Congress.
- Michigan rejects constitutional amendment on renewable energy. Michigan voters rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have increased the amount of renewable energy that utilities must buy to serve their customers. Proposition 3 would have required electric utilities to generate at least 25 percent of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025. Only 36% voted in favor of the measure to increase the renewable portfolio standard, meaning the RPS initiative failed.
How Election 2012 affects energy policy
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Today voters across the United States cast ballots in the 2012 general election. At stake are a broad range of political offices, ranging from the presidency to local municipal roles. How will the election's outcomes affect energy policy, energy-related businesses, and consumers?
The presidential contest has drawn the greatest attention over the past year. Whether President Obama will retain his office or Governor Romney will take the White House is the largest question. Based on the candidates' past actions and current campaign platforms, voters have some sense of how each would exercise his presidential powers. On energy issues, both candidates appear to favor increased domestic production of natural gas and oil. The candidates differ in their philosophies on the role of governmental incentives and subsidies -- whether for fossil fuel production or for renewable electricity generation -- and on emissions regulations for coal-fired and other power plants. The candidates also disagree on specific energy projects and programs ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Navy's Great Green Fleet biofuels initiative.
Beyond the presidency, federal elections will determine the composition of Congress. While energy policy is more sensitive to presidential changes than to individual congressional elections, the makeup of Congress drives federal energy policy in the aggregate. All seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are a third of Senate seats. Of the 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to win 21 seats to retain their majority while Republicans need to win 14 seats to take control. The senators elected in 2012 will participate in setting any national energy policy.
State elections will also shape energy policy for the coming years. Voters will select governors in 11 states, and state legislative offices are widely contested. While federal energy policy draws the most attention, the U.S. federalist system leaves significant authority to individual states to set their own policies on energy issues. For example, states may establish electric renewable portfolio standards or otherwise regulate the resource mix used to produce usable energy. The outcomes of state elections will also affect policies on energy efficiency, smart meters and smart grid infrastructure.
Voters in some states will also cast ballots on measures directly affecting energy policy, such as the Michigan citizens' initiative seeking to increase utilities' use of electricity produced by renewable resources.
It may be some time until all the ballots are finally counted, but by tomorrow night we will have a better understanding of the results for most of the races and ballot questions. Those who can translate the election results into an understanding of future policies - and business opportunities - will have a leg up on the competition.
The presidential contest has drawn the greatest attention over the past year. Whether President Obama will retain his office or Governor Romney will take the White House is the largest question. Based on the candidates' past actions and current campaign platforms, voters have some sense of how each would exercise his presidential powers. On energy issues, both candidates appear to favor increased domestic production of natural gas and oil. The candidates differ in their philosophies on the role of governmental incentives and subsidies -- whether for fossil fuel production or for renewable electricity generation -- and on emissions regulations for coal-fired and other power plants. The candidates also disagree on specific energy projects and programs ranging from the Keystone XL pipeline to the Navy's Great Green Fleet biofuels initiative.
Beyond the presidency, federal elections will determine the composition of Congress. While energy policy is more sensitive to presidential changes than to individual congressional elections, the makeup of Congress drives federal energy policy in the aggregate. All seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are a third of Senate seats. Of the 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to win 21 seats to retain their majority while Republicans need to win 14 seats to take control. The senators elected in 2012 will participate in setting any national energy policy.
State elections will also shape energy policy for the coming years. Voters will select governors in 11 states, and state legislative offices are widely contested. While federal energy policy draws the most attention, the U.S. federalist system leaves significant authority to individual states to set their own policies on energy issues. For example, states may establish electric renewable portfolio standards or otherwise regulate the resource mix used to produce usable energy. The outcomes of state elections will also affect policies on energy efficiency, smart meters and smart grid infrastructure.
Voters in some states will also cast ballots on measures directly affecting energy policy, such as the Michigan citizens' initiative seeking to increase utilities' use of electricity produced by renewable resources.
It may be some time until all the ballots are finally counted, but by tomorrow night we will have a better understanding of the results for most of the races and ballot questions. Those who can translate the election results into an understanding of future policies - and business opportunities - will have a leg up on the competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
